I think we'll probably see something of a hybrid. I do think that Riverview will be part of Metro and Nicollet/Central won't, because of the stop spacing/capacity/frequency tests. But I could see a situation where Nicollet/Central and the aBRT lines get "promoted" and start showing up more prominently on the Metro map, perhaps with color coding (ooh, how about pastels!) but keeping their letter names.

Sorta like this map, but more abstract, in the manner of a transit map instead of a geographic map, and minus the higher-frequency traditional buses.

The real nasty trick is figuring out where the Greenway streetcar, which has lots of stops but a dedicated transitway, fits in to all this.

Each of the three projects differs in some way (other than just vehicles and station configuration) from what we already have. Riverview is the most similar in terms of, like, the destinations it connects, while Midtown will be the most rapid, but serves more local destinations than those on the existing maps.

All these projects and their modes largely make sense given their context, but the subtle inconsistencies mean Metro Transit will have a hell of a time explaining them as part of a coherent system.

This is kind of getting really off topic... but my two cents is that anything that is greater than Hi- Frequency should be part of the METRO system and have a color. I think the A, B, C lines should be colors and on the metro map. It sounds dumb, but think of the rail bias that exists. If they were to say that all of these lines make up the METRO I think the general public will be more and more open to using the Riverview, Rush, East Metro (Gold) lines. Similar to what was posted above. We have a GREAT system that could be even better utilized if people realized how good it is and didn't just see it as Blue and Green lines, then buses (yuck!).

One significant problem with including A/B/C etc. as METRO lines is station spacing on the map. Either you have to place stops/labels really, really close together (and Hiawatha stops very far apart), which doesn't look good, or you have to make yourself comfortable with a Midtown/Lake St line that looks like an S.

I think the main problem with this discussion is that you are all confusing "technical criteria" with "political decision making". I also wish that the two were more unified, but that is clearly not now the case.

IMO, conventions should be assigned based off of what I’ll call “most-perceptible differences” i.e. what the average person understands to be different between modes. I think it makes more sense for the average person to understand: color=it’s on rails; letter=it’s a fast fancy bus (ideally with its own lane); number=it’s a regular bus

Frequencies only matter (to most) in the sense that people want transportation to be there when they need it. “The bus comes every 10 minutes” is lower priority knowledge than “the bus comes in 3 minutes and it’s the nice kind of bus”

In other words, if people are already planning to use transit, easily decoding what sort of transit they have available is more valuable. Frequency can be found pretty much anywhere else.

Another point is that frequency is not visually identifiable. I think there is a benefit to the system for the general public to be able to say “Oh look, there goes the C Line”

^I hope that made sense. this is based mostly off of lots of anecdotal/experiential evidence.

Ten years before shovels hit the ground on an 11-mile streetcar at-grade? And that's assuming nothing goes wrong!

We have a serious problem with our process. SWLRT was proposed in 1988(!) and began planning in earnest in 2002. 16 years and counting of non-construction work. Riverview, in the very best case, will be 10 years. Is the rule of thumb one year of planning per mile?

Perhaps it's time for transit advocates to shift from pushing for individual projects, to pushing for reform that will allow these projects to get up and running under a reasonable timeframe. It's no wonder we don't have the political will for these projects when five gubernatorial terms separate the proposal from the revenue service.